首页> 外文OA文献 >Sepsis patients in the emergency department: stratification using the Clinical Impression Score, Predisposition, Infection, Response and Organ dysfunction score or quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score?
【2h】

Sepsis patients in the emergency department: stratification using the Clinical Impression Score, Predisposition, Infection, Response and Organ dysfunction score or quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score?

机译:急诊部门的败血症患者:使用临床印象评分,易感性,感染,反应和器官功能障碍评分或快速器官功能衰竭评估评分进行分层?

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the stratification of sepsis patients in the emergency department (ED) for ICU admission and mortality using the Predisposition, Infection, Response and Organ dysfunction (PIRO) and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) scores with clinical judgement assessed by the ED staff. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective observational study in the ED of a tertiary care teaching hospital. Adult nontrauma patients with suspected infection and at least two Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria were included. The primary outcome was direct ED to ICU admission. The secondary outcomes were in-hospital, 28-day and 6-month mortality, indirect ICU admission and length of stay. Clinical judgement was recorded using the Clinical Impression Scores (CIS), appraised by a nurse and the attending physician. The PIRO and qSOFA scores were calculated from medical records. RESULTS: We included 193 patients: 103 presented with sepsis, 81 with severe sepsis and nine with septic shock. Fifteen patients required direct ICU admission. The CIS scores of nurse [area under the curve (AUC)=0.896] and the attending physician (AUC=0.861), in conjunction with PIRO (AUC=0.876) and qSOFA scores (AUC=0.849), predicted direct ICU admission. The CIS scores did not predict any of the mortality endpoints. The PIRO predicted in-hospital (AUC=0.764), 28-day (AUC=0.784) and 6-month mortality (AUC=0.695). The qSOFA score also predicted in-hospital (AUC=0.823), 28-day (AUC=0.848) and 6-month mortality (AUC=0.620). CONCLUSION: Clinical judgement is a fast and reliable method to stratify between ICU and general ward admission in ED patients with sepsis. The PIRO and qSOFA scores do not add value to this stratification, but perform better on the prediction of mortality. In sepsis patients, therefore, the principle of 'treat first what kills first' can be supplemented with 'judge first and calculate later'.
机译:目的:本研究的目的是使用易感性,感染,反应和器官功能障碍(PIRO)和快速顺序器官衰竭评估(qSOFA)评分,比较急诊败血症患者在ICU入院和死亡中的分层情况由ED人员评估临床判断。患者与方法:这是一家三级护理教学医院急诊室的一项前瞻性观察性研究。疑似感染且至少有两个系统炎症反应综合征标准的成年非创伤患者被纳入。主要结果是直接ED入ICU。次要结果是住院,28天和6个月死亡率,间接ICU入院和住院时间。使用临床印象分数(CIS)记录临床判断,并由护士和主治医师评估。 PIRO和qSOFA得分是根据病历计算得出的。结果:我们纳入了193例患者:103例败血症,81例严重败血症和9例败血性休克。 15名患者需要直接ICU入院。护士的CIS评分[曲线下面积(AUC)= 0.896]和主治医师(AUC = 0.861),结合PIRO(AUC = 0.876)和qSOFA评分(AUC = 0.849),可预测直接入ICU。 CIS评分并未预测任何死亡率终点。 PIRO预测住院期间(AUC = 0.764),28天(AUC = 0.784)和6个月死亡率(AUC = 0.695)。 qSOFA评分还预测了住院期间(AUC = 0.823),28天(AUC = 0.848)和6个月死亡率(AUC = 0.620)。结论:临床判断是对脓毒症ED患者ICU和普通病房进行分层的一种快速,可靠的方法。 PIRO和qSOFA得分并未为这一分层增加价值,但在预测死亡率方面表现更好。因此,在败血症患者中,“先治疗先杀死”的原则可以辅以“先判定然后再计算”。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号